User talk:EmpressHarmonic

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EmpressHarmonicn wondering why you removed the category? Cheers. Lotje (talk) 06:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Lotje! Good catch - reverted! I did not realize the difference between Category:Pomegranates in paintings and Category:Portraits with pomegranates. Thank you! EmpressHarmonic (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome Lotje (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. Bedivere (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1]: doesn't "marble columns" imply that the column is made of marble? This just has a marble veneer. - Jmabel ! talk 09:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you want to ask for speedy-delete of an empty category, best practice is to mark it with {{SD|C2}} if it would be OK to re-create it in the future, given that appropriate content becomes available or {{SD|C1}} if it is an inappropriate category name that should not be reused. In particular, this is better practice than just blanking the category page, as you did at [[:Category::The Glorification of the Virgin]]. ("C1" and "C2" come from Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion). Jmabel ! talk 15:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - this is very helpful information! EmpressHarmonic (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EH. Thanks for your contibutions. I noticed something odd though. Equestrian portraits are portraits of famous riders on horseback. "cat:Portrait paintings of horses" is the right category for paintings of famous named but usually unridden horses. I hope this can be fixed soon. Sorry I have to keep my hands off mass errors made by others due to my RSI caused by too much effort about such none-of-my-business issues. Nowadays I just fix it locally by closing this page. Peli (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC) Still I made a cat "Paintings of horses in the etc " ... Some could be in both Portrait paintings of horses and in .. Paintings of horses in the etc . Best regards Peli (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Pelikana that an "equestrian portrait" means a portrait of a human on horseback. - Jmabel ! talk 22:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both - that makes sense! I made the suggested changes in Category:Paintings of horses in the Royal Collection of the United Kingdom. Thanks again! EmpressHarmonic (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When changing from {{Information}} to {{Art photo}} (as here), please make sure the photographers name/username is not left as author or they will be listed as author of the object or that the date for the photo is not left as date for creation of the object. I removed myself as I wasn't around back then, and the data for me as photographer will come from the SDC. Looking back among your contributions there might be some you should revisit and clean up. Thanks for adding a more useful template though! /Haxpett (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing all the categorizing of these remarkable objects. I went to the museum as part of a group, we had a guide, but we spend only two hours in the museum, so I took quick shots of the stuff, just what seemed most interesting to me. I never had the time to go deeper into the background, so I took photos of the descriptions to help identify the things. So you might find the descriptions in the shot one number higher or lower or different shots of the same object.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Typically we will retain a category redirect unless there is a good reason to not do so, especially if the category has been sitting around for a while. So please do not just push them to deletion just because you have moved the category. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw that you have added a lot of the photos of the Category:Spillings Hoard to Category:Viking coins. I'm not so sure this is correct. Non of these coins were made by Vikings, they were just earned, hoarded and used by the Vikings, that does not make them Viking coins. They could be called 'Viking era coins', but they are all made somewhere else than Scandinavia. I mean, if I have a bunch of dollar bills in my apartment, that doesn't make them 'Swedish Money'. Or am I missing something? Best, --Cart (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good call @Cart- I agree! I made a new category called Viking Age coins to differentiate from coins created by Vikings. Thanks again! EmpressHarmonic (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have been applying the aforementionned category to images already classified under Category:Images from McCord Museum. Why? It seems to me as a COM:OVERCAT. The latter is implied by Template:MM. Webfil (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Webfil: Category:Images from McCord Museum is a "source" category (and therefore probably should be a hidden category). Category:Photographs in the McCord Stewart Museum is topical: photographs in the museum's collection. - Jmabel ! talk 18:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between an image sourced from a museum and an image in a museum's collection is elusive to me. Whatever ruffles your truffles. 🤷 Webfil (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Webfil: The museum could upload a photograph of their building, or of an event, or of an object in their collection that is not itself a photograph, which would belong in Category:Images from McCord Museum but not Category:Photographs in the McCord Stewart Museum. I could upload a copy of an image from their photograph collection that they themselves had never uploaded, which would be the other way around. But if most of what we have is images provided by the museum of photographs in their collection then, yes, the two categories will have very similar contents. - Jmabel ! talk 22:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see you have been adding this category to a number of files recently. Thank you, but some of those postcards depict scenes from places in Quebec that are not in Montreal. I am correcting some of them but you could take a look to see if there are not others. What may have misled you is the mention "BAnQ Vieux-Montréal" in some of the file names, but that simply means that this image is kept in the collection of th BAnQ center in Montreal. Cortomaltais (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed a bunch of images from the “Ermine (clothing) in art” category without moving them to another “Ermine” category? -- Kürschner (talk) 07:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Kürschner! This was an error on my part when moving images to subcategories. I went back and fixed the ones I identified, but please let me know if you come across any others. Thanks! -- EmpressHarmonic (talk) 11:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your category edits on some of my uploaded images. Please could I request that you kindly do not categorise scarecrows as sculptures, as there is currently an unpleasantly heated disagreement on Commons regarding that subject. To avoid controversy and/or inappropriate deletion of images, it is safe to categorise festival scarecrows as "scarecrows of (subject)". Storye book (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Storye book! Going forward, I will use "scarecrows of (subject)"! -- EmpressHarmonic (talk) 11:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bless you. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, in editions you made on March 16 you have replaced the category “portraits with parrots from the 18th century” with “Cockatoos in art”, you should have added that category without eliminating the one related to parrots. Cheers Ecummenic (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I saw you edited Category:Jaguar warrior to be within Category:Male fur clothing in art, and I wanted to discuss that, as I'm not sure it should be?

Firstly, most Jaguar-pattern Tlahuiztli warsuits would not have been made with actual fur or pelt: They were generally made from a thick cotton base garment, which then had Feather Mosaic applied to it, with the feathers of different colors arranged to merely emulate a Jaguar pelt pattern...

...however, some sources do assert that the warsuits worn by commoners who achieved the right to wear Jaguar themed Tlahuiztli via merit and becoming an honorary noble had to make do with a warsuit made from actual Jaguar pelt.

Furthermore, not all images currently within the category actually are "Jaguar Warriors" in the strict sense of being Mexica soldiers with that rank: There's actually some disagreement among academics if it was a specific rank or military order as often described (as opposed to the Jaguar warsuit simply being one of many varieties without being tied to a specific order or rank), and more importantly, some images within the category are of Mixtec codices which show ceremonial rather then warsuit Jaguar themed garb, modern reconstructions, etc.

Next, even assuming including it within "Male Fur Clothing" is appropriate since some Jaguar warsuits may have been pelt, I'm not sure about the "in art" qualifier. Yes, most of the images in the category are of artistic depictions from historical manuscripts and codices, but the category itself is for the military rank/position, or in practice given the current images, Jaguar themed clothing used by Mesoamericans. Would Category:Male fur clothing without the "art" qualifier perhaps not be more appropriate?

To be clear, I'm not saying you should nessacarily revert the change: As I stated, there is an argument to be made it belongs within the fur clothing categories(s) even if it is not always or usually fur based, and most of the images in the category are "in art". I'm moreso just trying to get your opinion and maybe discuss it a bit: I'm new to editing Wikimedia so I don't know what the best practices are, and am curious!

If anything I feel like we should probably err on being over-inclusive rather then over-exclusive, so if I had to pick a specific course of action, i'd switch it to the Category:Male fur clothing category rather then removing it entirely or keeping it as is (since that still represents some of it being fur based while having the broadest category within that tree that it makes sense in), but that's just my off the cuff gut opinion.

Let me know what you think,

MajoraZ (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I see that Category:Military fur clothing is a thing, so if the category addition you made is kept, it should probably be that rather then Category:Male fur clothing , probably; or Category:Military fur clothing in art rather then Category:Male fur clothing in art, probably?

MajoraZ (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MajoraZ - I think we had similar thoughts about Category:Jaguar warrior!

It was originally in Category:Male fur clothing in art per a 2014 edit, and I moved it to Category:Male fur clothing as not all of the images seemed to be strictly artistic represntations. Because I wasn't sure of the background/history of the warsuits, I decided to revert my edit back to Category:Male fur clothing in art.

If you feel it should be part of Category:Male fur clothing or Category:Military fur clothing (or both) instead, I think it makes sense to move it out of Category:Male fur clothing in art unless someone else feels differently.

I am not sure if it makes sense to also add the images of artistic representations of the warsuits to Category:Male fur clothing in art and/or Category:Military fur clothing in art as well to differentiate them from other images, or maybe just make a new subcategory named Category:Jaguar warriors in art that can also be tagged with Category:Jaguars in art by subject and Category:Jaguars in Aztec art. What do you think?

I appreciate your thoughts! EmpressHarmonic (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for editing a sort key, but of course we sort in family name and first name and use other syntax: Beckmann, Max; Still... Oursana (talk) 10:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read through Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:Historical images. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 07:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]